FATHIMA ZOORA vs STATE OF KARNATAKA

Court
Karnataka High Court

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61697
CRL.P No. 15177 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010681942026




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 5 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026


BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 15177 OF 2026

BETWEEN:

FATHIMA ZOORA,
D/O. ABUBAKKAR,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
R/AT NO.1-222, SURIBAILU HOUSE,
BOLANTHILA VILLAGE, MANGALURU,
DAKSHINA KANNADA 575029.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI HARSHA G C, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI NISHIT KUMAR SHETTY,ADVOCATE)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY MULKY POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BANGALORE 560 001.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI M V ANOOP KUMAR, ADDL.SPP)












THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528
BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING
THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO ALLOW
THE PETITION AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 27.07.2026,
MADE IN SPL.C.NO.128/2026 BY THE PRL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K.MANGALURU IN RESPECT OF
APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER U/S 497 AND 503 OF
BNSS AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE
PETITIONER U/S 497 AND 503 OF BNSS AND ORDER TO
RELEASE THE MARUTI COMPANY FRONX DELTA + CAR
Digitally Signed by ANANT
RAMNATH HEGDE

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61697
CRL.P No. 15177 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010681942026


BEARING REGISTRATION NO.KA-70-M7115, TO THE CUSTODY
OF THE PETITIONER.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

ORAL ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for the
respondent -State.

2. This petition is filed challenging the order dated
27.07.2026 in Special Case No.128/2026 pending before the
Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru.

3. In terms of the impugned order, petitioner's
application under Sections 497 and 503 of Bharathiya Nagarika
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is rejected.

4. In terms of the impugned order, the Trial Court has
come to the conclusion that the petitioner is not entitled to the
relief in terms of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the
1
case of Bishwajit Dey vs. State of Assam .

1
(2025) 3 SCC 241

Digitally Signed by ANANT
RAMNATH HEGDE

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61697
CRL.P No. 15177 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010681942026



5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit
that no complaint is filed against the petitioner and no drugs
are recovered from the possession/custody of the petitioner.
The petitioner's husband is accused No.1 and the allegation is
that, the drugs are found in the car which was being used by
the petitioner's husband at the time of alleged seizure and
recovery.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the
circumstances would submit that there is no allegation that the
petitioner was in conscious possession of the drugs and she
was not in the control of the vehicle at the time of alleged
incident.

7. It is the further submission that in paragraph No.30
of the judgment of the Apex Court in Bishwajit Dey supra
referred by the Trial Court would come to the aid of the
petitioner. Thus, the learned counsel would urge that the
petition be allowed and the vehicle be released subject to
conditions.
Digitally Signed by ANANT
RAMNATH HEGDE

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61697
CRL.P No. 15177 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010681942026



8. Learned Additional State Public Prosecutor would
submit that the Trial Court has referred to the facts of the case
and also referred to the judgment of the Apex Court in
Bishwajit Dey supra and has rightly rejected the application.

9. The Court has considered the contentions raised at
the Bar and perused the records.

10. It is relevant to notice that the petitioner is not the
accused. Thus, there is no allegation against the petitioner at
all. The allegation is that the petitioner's husband was using the
vehicle when the drugs were allegedly seized from the
possession of the petitioner's husband.

11. The Apex Court in the case of Bishwajit Dey supra
in paragraphs No.29 and 30 has held as under:
"BROADLY SPEAKING THERE ARE FOUR SCENARIOS
29. Though seizure of drugs/substances from
conveyances can take place in a number of situations, yet
broadly speaking there are four scenarios in which the
drug or substance is seized from a conveyance. Firstly,
where the owner of the vehicle is the person from whom
the possession of contraband drugs/substance is
recovered. Secondly, where the contraband is recovered
Digitally Signed by ANANT
RAMNATH HEGDE

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61697
CRL.P No. 15177 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010681942026


from the possession of the agent of the owner i.e. like
driver or cleaner hired by the owner. Thirdly, where the
vehicle has been stolen by the accused and contraband is
recovered from such stolen vehicle. Fourthly, where the
contraband is seized / recovered from a third-party
occupant (with or without consideration) of the vehicle
without any allegation by the police that the contraband
was stored and transported in the vehicle with the
owner’s knowledge and connivance. In the first two
scenarios, the owner of the vehicle and/or his agent
would necessarily be arrayed as an accused. In the third
and fourth scenario, the owner of the vehicle and/or his
agent would not be arrayed as an accused.
30. This Court is of the view that criminal law has not to
be applied in a vacuum but to the facts of each case.
Consequently, it is only in the first two scenarios that the
vehicle may not be released on superdari till reverse
burden of proof is discharged by the accused-owner.
However, in the third and fourth scenarios, where no
allegation has been made in the charge-sheet against the
owner and/or his agent, the vehicle should normally be
released in the interim on superdari subject to the owner
furnishing a bond that he would produce the vehicle as
and when directed by the Court and/or he would pay the
value of the vehicle as determined by the Court on the
date of the release, if the Court is finally of the opinion
that the vehicle needs to be confiscated."
(Emphasis supplied)
Digitally Signed by ANANT
RAMNATH HEGDE

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61697
CRL.P No. 15177 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010681942026



12. The Apex Court has considered the four broad
scenarios where the contrabands are found in the vehicles and
referring to the last two scenarios, the Apex Court has held that
in such cases, the vehicle may be released subject to certain
conditions.

13. In the instant case, since there is no allegation
against the petitioner that the petitioner was in conscious
possession of the contraband, or that the petitioner had the
knowledge about her husband using the vehicle while using the
contraband or to carry the contraband. The Court is the view
that the petitioner is entitled to the relief claimed.

14. Hence the following:
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Petition is allowed .
(ii) The impugned order dated 27.07.2026 in
Special Case No.128/2026 pending on the file
of Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada,
Mangaluru is quashed.
Digitally Signed by ANANT
RAMNATH HEGDE

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61697
CRL.P No. 15177 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010681942026


(iii) The Trial Court shall release the vehicle to the
petitioner after the petitioner executing a bond
for value of the vehicle.
(iv) The petitioner shall also undertake to produce
the vehicle as and when the vehicle is required
by the Court during the course of trial.
(v) The petitioner shall not alienate or hypothecate
the vehicle or change the colour and other
features of the vehicle.

Digitally Signed by ANANT
RAMNATH HEGDE
(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)
JUDGE
GVP
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 56